[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ICRP 2 standard
Prof. Bo Lindell who is the recipient of the first Sievert award, presented
at international congress on radiation protection IRPA-9 in Vienna (April
1996), one of the most important paper on risk evaluation and
decision-making. The main point of his lecture was that there are no
acceptable risks only acceptable practices, and that communication with the
public needs to be a higher priority in the field of radiation protection.
Bo's paper, RISK EVALUATION AND DECISION MAKING, explains with admirable
competence many of our divergences. One point in the Bo's paper is Attention
to Attitudes, and he point out that there are a number of well known factor
that form our attitude and they influence our risk perception, but this view
may be to narrow since they influence our attitude to more than just the
risk, and Bo explains the most important factor. Probably many of you have
attended that risk evaluation and decision making symposium and have the
Bo's paper, however if someone has not and is interested, it will be a
pleasure to send it.
Here again
Jose Julio Rozental
joseroze@netvision.net.il
Israel
----- Original Message -----
From: William V Lipton <liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM>
To: Michael Stabin <michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu>
Cc: Jim Muckerheide <jmuckerheide@cnts.wpi.edu>;
<peter.thomas@health.gov.au>; <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2002 5:25 PM
Subject: Re: ICRP 2 standard
What about the 15 mrem/year EPA limit for groundwater, the 25 mrem/year
decommissioning limit (10 CFR 20, Subpart E), or the ZERO allowable
contamination limit for the free release of materials by a licensee (10 CFR
20,
Subpart K, as interpreted in NRC, HPPOS-221: "The regulations applicable to
nuclear power reactor licensees do not provide for the release of materials
that
are known to be radioactively contaminated at any level...")?
I'm not saying that those who laid the groundwork for such unreasonable
public
concern did so "for the purpose of getting big bucks." However, there was a
natural bias to think that radiation hazards are different from any other
hazards, even chemical carcinogens. This guilty until proven innocent
approach
to radiation protection is where we screwed up. If we took that approach to
everything, we'd never get out of bed in the morning, and it was naive to
not
anticipate the effect of such policies on the public. I'm not questioning
the
integrity of these people, but those decisions were wrong. If benzene, a
radiomimetic, can have a PEL, why can't radiation? How did we decide that
we
should spend $1000 to avoid a man-rem (10 CFR 50, Appendix I; I've heard of
figures as high as $10000/man-rem.) when a significant fraction of our
population is denied access to basic health care?
I have probably benefited personally from these decisions. As a colleague
once
stated: "Radiations's been very very good to me!" Yet I am not happy about
it. It is ultimately demoralizing to devote your life to protecting people
from
imaginary hazards. This, not academic funding is the reason for the "Human
Capital Crisis in Radiation Safety" (HPS Position Statement, August, 2001.)
The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
Let's look at the real problem, for a change.
Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com
Michael Stabin wrote:
> >...
>
> Truthfulness is not the issue here, it's simply cautious (perhaps overly
> cautious) design, and it was not for the purpose of getting big bucks but
> for protecting workers and the public when uncertainties exist. Remember
> that the original push for lower limits (down from 15-50 rem per year to 5
> rem per year) was made by scientists worried about genetic effects. The
> scientific case for not worrying about this in humans (of course
maintaining
> a strict 5 rem/yr limit for occupationally exposed fruit flies) can easily
> be made, based on plentiful data. The suggested change from 5 rem/yr to 2
> rem/yr was due to somatic effects. I agree that there are two ways to see
> the data of BEIR V, but I don't agree that the recommendations for more
> restrictive limits were made for such trivial and self-serving reasons as
> you assert. If a convincing case can be made that this is too restrictive,
> to the scientific bodies (first), they will accept it, then that will be
> accepted by the regulatory bodies and then the public. The scientists who
> developed these recommendations were and are men and women of good
> character, this is evident in Lauriston Taylor's detailed historical
> accounts. The scoundrels in some of these activist political groups that
> have indeed lied to the public should be held accountable for this, but
your
> characterization of the scientific community is quite unfair.
>
> Michael G. Stabin, PhD, CHP
> Assistant Professor of Radiology and Radiological Sciences
> Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences
> Vanderbilt University
> 1161 21st Avenue South
> Nashville, TN 37232-2675
> Phone (615) 322-3190
> Fax (615) 322-3764
> e-mail michael.g.stabin@vanderbilt.edu
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/